Since I'm feeling political...

["Sixhits"]

Check this out:

"You might laugh at all of the Bush/Hitler analogies that are floating around out there but you've got to admit that for a democratically elected president of the freest society in the world, he does as much dictator type shit as he could possibly get away with and still be the president of a free society.

I doubt there is anyone still breathing that has seen an American president so brazenly abuse our civil liberties as Dubya. "

Ahh, yes. At long last, Truth.

http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume02/diatribes015/diatribes294-314/diatribes294.htm


And if you are unaware of the MoveOn.org Bush in 30 seconds Ads, here's a link.

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

The two best in my opinion are CHILD'S PAY and WHAT ARE WE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN? And for us Mac users ... DESKTOP is fun.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

I am absolutely not an conservative, but I feel the Bush/Hitler analogies are concocted for  mere shock value. The most obvious difference between Bush and Hitler is the fact Hitler was charismatic and well spoken thus allowing him to cease control of the masses through his fiery rhetoric, whereas Bush is just a corporate pawn born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

To jump ahead of any of the conservatives on this forum, I'll point out that both those links are clearly leftist leaning sites and its no wonder they bash Bush and compare him with perhaps the most evil man of the 20th century.

Bush has however done devious deeds. The recent immigration act, Clear Skies, Healthy Forrest are all prime examples of the Bush regimes clear corporate leaning. Not to mention the 87 billion dollar debacle called Iraq.

Bush has indeed placed this country in the shackles of corporate evil, but has he committed an act of racially motivated genocide? I think not, even though I despise him with all my heart.

One point about the upcoming democratic elections, Im calling that if Dean does indeed win the nomination, then Bush will be reelected. If Clark wins the nomination, the Bush regime will be leaving Washington.

[c| Hathcock]

    The thing with some of these arguments is that our justice system is deciding over them right now.  Which is exactly the point of our constitution.  So say what you will, but the President can seem as dictatorial as he wants but if the law is unconstitutional than the Supreme Court kills it and Bush can't do anything about it.  
     I'll agree that he is pretty devious and the fact that I can not completely trust my President does bother me.  But Dean is on the complete other side of the spectrum and right now he is leading the Democratic nomination.  So unless Clark can continue his climb I would much rather have Bush in office than Dean who has absolutely no experience in anything involving foreign affairs (and before you say it I know Bush had little before he was elected but he had good advisors who do have a great deal of it).  And Dean will lighten my wallet faster than this damn computer did.  
     There were some pretty bad examples of takes on Bush in those videos though.  For one the economy was begining to drop before Bush came into office.  A recession doesn't just magically appear in a couple months.  It takes time and bringing the economy back up takes time.  Bush's tax cuts have helped this economy more than anything could have and most of these Democrats will repeal it so why the hell should I vote for them?  And coporations having control of a politician is hardly a new thing.  I believe there was more pork included in this years budget than ever before.  And your beloved Democrats were responsible for that too.  
     I would have been much happier had Sen. McCain got the nomination in 2000. But unfortunately that is the past and we still basically have to vote on the lesser of two evils, pending the Democratic nomination, but there are only 2 I would ever think of voting for.
     

["Sixhits"]

Just wondering, how can you blame the Dems in congress for pork in bills passed when congress is controled by Republicans? It's like blaming Bill Clinton for the recession ...

As to the recession, regardless of who we blame - and it's pretty fair to say the buck stops with sitting Presidents when things go to shit - but just to be fair, if we accept that Bush is not responsible for the recession we must still accept that he is acountable for his response to the recession. Cutting taxes in moderation is all fine and good - we all like cash back - but cutting taxes for the wealthy never stimulats the economy. Reagan tried it and fucked us up until the Clinton years. Giving large bailouts to industries that are critical, like the airlines, is one thing. But protecting corporate cronies like Enron and standing watch over a series of catestrophic corporate colapses, scandels, and abuse is entirely another. Tax cuts are Bush's sole response to our economic troubles. Do you believe that repeatedly cutting taxes can really protect our economy? Cutting taxes to solve our ecomonic woes is much like handing out welfare checks to outa work workers. But just as the only way to better the lives of those outa work workers is for them to get their jobs back, so to must the US economy get off the dole. And remeber, the vast majority of Bush's tax cuts go to the fabulously wealthy. Like liberal film producers and hollywood stars. If you can't hate tax cuts becuase they hurt the economy in th elong run, then hate them because lots of people in Hollywood get a lot of your money.

And even if reducing taxes led directly to easing the recession, they also have led directly to our deficit. It's the "$300 bucks for you on the front porch, $500 bucks out your back pocket, and $2000 bucks from your kids future" way of dealing with economic problems. I.e, he's selling our future and our kid's future in order to appear like he's solving our problems today.

When it comes to cutting taxes Republicans and Dems often sell those cuts as putting money back into your pocket. The trouble is, sure, if the Feds cut a check to you and yours you're gonna pick up some instant green-backs. But, those dollars in your pocket are dollars out of your services. A lot of people don't get that. Taxes pay for your way of life. The wealthy have a vested interest in reducing taxes because their quality of life has nothing ot do with Federal and State services - they can buy themselves a ticket. But for us, we need our services. We need social security, we need funded healthcare, we need soldiers to get combat pay and good medical treatment so they can protect us, and we need our kids to get a world class education. Bush's reduction of taxes threatens all of those critical services directly.

You know what would have helped the economy? A motivated President. Bush doesn't care what's wrong, he cares only about looking like he's doing what's right. In that way he's much like Bill Clinton. Only Bill didn't preside over the worst economic downswing since the Great Depression. He also didn't waste 87 billion bucks invading a country that could never have threatened the US. In fact, Clinton tried repeatedly to kill Osama Bin Laden - remember him? Why are we in Iraq if Korea, for example, has nukes? Or when Osama runs free, laughing, as he's world view becomes a reality? Bush consistantly forgets or ignores this country's priorities.

As for Dean, he leads the Dems cause he's passionate, out-spoken, and throws a lot of what Bush and his administration does back at them. Basicaly, he's running on holding Bush accountable. Like why do we waste blood and money invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism or the attacks on the US? He also has a disgustingly effective online organization. Clark should do more of the same.

[c| Hathcock]

I didn't mean to imply it was just the Democrats that put all the pork in but re-reading my statement I see that it kind of sounded that way.  I pretty much hate all politicians in general regardless of party affiliation.  

Cutting taxes brought a little more into my check and when that happens people buy more. And so companies produce more, and then they need to hire new workers, so now more people get jobs, and then they start spending and their extra tax dollars go back to the government.  So really the Democratic, and Republican economic theories just take diferent roads to the same goal.  Democrats tax you more, and Republicans tax you less hoping that the increased economic growth will increase the tax revenue.  

As for the rich getting richer well ya they did get a bigger cut.  But the dividends side increased stock market investing which is always a good thing.  I wish someone would actually just make taxes a flat rate accross the board but as it stands now the rich pay a much higher percentage than the rest of us, and while I'm far from being near that category thats not entirely fair either.

With Korea thats still a work in progress.  I saw in the news earlier this week that the North Koreans were offering some new concessions but I'm not positive on what it is.  Work's been busy and thats usually where I catch the news.  The tricky thing with Korea is that if you flat out invade than Seoul pretty much gets fucked being soo close to the border.  

And finally standing up to a man with over a decade of playing games with the UN is bringing positive results.  The North Koreans are not quite as ambitious anymore, Iran and Syria are cooperating with international inspectors, and less we forget that that millions of Iraqis are actually free.  Whatever Bush's personal reason's for war, you can't say that many wars in history actually freed millions instead of enslaved them.

[Ssickboy]

I wouldn't mind feeling a little more freedom myself.  

And what about mental enslavery? When your personality, tastes, thoughts, opinions are warped.  Our everyday values are coorporately branded, our education is more and more deprived, Our leaders mislead using false half statements, and misdirected rhetoric.  Everything has been twisted.  Once you open your eyes, the sense of freedom soon becomes a sense of threat... unless you're rich of course. Because this kind of system favors you lucky bunch.  

k, how about this thought?  I feel as though this Country had its arm twisted to go to war (very undemocracy-like).  A majority of Americans did not support this war before the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" theory.  Bush desperatley wanted to attack Saddam way before all this BS.  Now that it has become apparent there are no weapons, and that the adminstration lied about it, the right side minority is saying, "it's still ok, they are free now." No it's not ok.  The system is getting fucked with.  Who are the real winners here?  Oh it's cool... it's our homeboys at Haliburton.  I don't want our soldiers giving their lives because of false motives.  That stuff pisses me off.  Cronies win again.

Let's open your eyes to reality.  There are those who would like you to see and share knowledge, and then there are those who would rather you be blind and consume what they feed you.  Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, are competing to sell polished garbage for you to consume.  We are too easily swayed as a mass people, and the corporate bunch win out.  "Patriatism" twisted.  "War on Terrorism" twisted.  "Tax cuts," twisted. "Freedom" twisted.  "Democracy" twisted.

Tell it like it is right?  Good points on bringing "Rogue Nations" in check by going to war.  But was it neccesary to carry the burden on our own, and declare war right away without international support.  I do believe the world is on our side when it truly comes down to freedom and fairness.  Something else is motivating this agenda.    

I don't think our constitution stands for what is currently happening in our government.  I hope the supreme court steps in, but... they're mostly appointed by Republicans.  Our democracy has been check mated.

I like what Dean has been accomplishing, but I liken towards Clark as a leader too.  I wish the Republicans would stand behind someone like McCain.  There is something so dead on about Dean, but then again he scares me.  why? maybe he's so controversial.  But perhaps the controversy is perfect. not quite sure.

[c| Hathcock]

You make some good points Ssick (and not just becuase I'm in your clan).  But I have to ask just how much it was Bush deceiving us or Saddam deceiving the world about his true weapons capabilities (I posted about this is Sixhit's other column).  I know Bush is not a man to be trusted outright but I feel that Colin Powell is.  And from what I know of the man he would not just be bullied into saying something he knows for certain is untrue just because the President told him too.  

We saw a good coilition of partners involved with Kosovo which was the overthrow of a madmen that killed his own people and he was much much less of a threat to other nations than Saddam was.  So why now does Europe stand in the way instead of helping?  Is it because it is no longer in their backdoor and they actually gain more by having Saddam keep selling them the majority or Iraq's oil?  

The world seems to be coming to the point where you can not really trust anybody in power which is disconcerting.  Corporations buy everybody simply because it costs so much just too get elected.  

Dean scares the hell out of me but just for his political views on issues which in my opinion are radically wrong on those that are very important to me.  As for the man I don't know him well enough, but he is passionate which is something a lot of them lack.  Clark has that trait and we know he's a leader, so as the Democrats go he's the man I wan't to have the nomination.  It's out of our hands though so we shall just have to wait and see, and vote in November.

[Cutter]

kids, kids, kids...

["Sixhits"]

I really liked Colin Powel. The man had one, wonderful expression of policy: the Powell doctrine.

1) Is A Vital US Interest At Stake?
2) Will We Commit Sufficient Resources To Win?
3) Are Our Objectives Clearly Defined?
4) Will We Sustain the Commitment?
5) Is There A Reasonable Expectation that the Public and Congress Will Support the Operation?
6) Have we exhausted our other options?

These questions arose out of his experience in Vietnam, and I truly respect that. I also think Powell has laid out for us a great way of testing out policy when it comes to military delpoyment.

I think Powell has stretched his own policy.

(1) Are vital US interests at stake in Iraq. No. There are no weapons of mass destruction there. None. No threat. There's oil - but, of course, we didn't invade Iraq to secure it's oil reserves, did we?

(2) Score one for Bush. He fucking rocked Iraq's ass with Clinton's army.

(3) Are our objectives clearly defined? No. Can anyone here tell me what our objectives were? With ranging claims from stopping imminent WMD attacks to freeing the Iraqis to bringing down the UN to stopping a dictator to democraczing the middle east... which is it? And why can't they just tell it straight? And why do they have to lie about why we're going there? Sure, we've liberated the Iraqi's from Saddam's rule. Are they free? No. We occupy the country. Our soliders still make the law and execute policy. The cornor stone of democracy, the vote, is being denied from Irqis by Bush. A free press is being contained, while propaganda media is being set up and broadcast. All the while our control over the countryside - you know, places other than the cities - is slipping.  

(4) Will we sustain the commitment? No. We've gotten stuck in a pickle. If we leave our troops delpoyed we will loose the support of the American public, have increasingly lower and lower reenlistment rates, and get more soliders killed. But if we do pull out the country is likely to collapse into civil war or reform into some kind of islamic republic. Further, if we withdraw, the US looks impotent and the whole endeavour looks like a failed crusade. Bush has verbally stated we'll stay the course, but in an election year, and with consistant policy commitments to bring the troops home ...

(5) Score one for Bush. There is a reasonalbe expectation the public with support the war. However, lying about why we're going to war and constantly misleading and creating new reasons why we went to war is a bad way to secure the public's support.

(6) Did we exhaust all other options? No. Come on! We enforced Bush's will. We tried to have our cake and eat it, too - touting Saddam's years of non-compliance with UN resolutions as a causus beli out one side the mouth while from the other side cursing the UN and calling it irrelevent when it came to supporting aggressive war against Iraq. Talk about bullshit and misleading!! As much as I may dislike France or Germany their opinions matters - much like if I dislike Ghostsniper, his opinion matter. Guess why? Because democracy is founded on the free expression of ideas and opinion - biased, self serving, or honestly given - it doesn't matter. And if we want to set the right example - if we want to bring democracy to the middle east, for example - we need to practice it. We need to demonstrait it. And when American Democracy looks like just another from of "the strong telling the weak what to do" then why would anyone, anywhere, be inspired to attain democracy? In fact, why not try and beat down the strong so you can tell the weak what to do. A lot of people praise the succesful invasion of Iraq as the US demonstraiting commitment to a cause and the potency of our military. Great. But that was not the reason I was told we invaded. Nor is it a good reason. Nor will it succeed in cowing our opponents. All it does is undermine our own Democracy and the persistance of all other Democracys.

["Sixhits"]

Our budget deficits threaten the world economy.

"WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Economists at the International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) on Wednesday expressed alarm at growing U.S. budget deficits, saying continued deficits could hurt the global economy by roiling currency markets and driving up interest rates.

In a report on U.S. budget outlook, IMF researchers described the state of government finances as "perilous" in the long run and urged Congress and the White House to take steps to quickly rein in the deficits. Although federal tax cuts and spending increases since 2001 bolstered the global economy in the short run, the report said "large U.S. fiscal deficits also pose significant risks for the rest of the world.""

Bush tax cuts threaten the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=808&u=/dowjones/20040107/bs_dowjones/200401071721001228&printer=1

[Cutter]

somebody needs some pussy and an outrageously huge blunt
badly.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

I agree cutter, G.W. Bush could use some pussy and an outrageously huge blunt.

[Cutter]

LOL

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I always find it amusing that Spets quotes H.L. Mencken in his signature (Henry Louis Mencken was one of the biggest conservatives of the 20th Century).

One of my favorites from Mencken is the following:

"We live in a land of abounding quackeries, and if we do not learn how to laugh we succumb to the melancholy disease which afflicts the race of viewers-with-alarm... In no other country known to me is life as safe and agreeable, taking one day with another, as it is in These States. Even in a great Depression few if any starve, and even in a great war the number who suffer by it is vastly surpassed by the number who fatten on it and enjoy it. Thus my view of my country is predominantly tolerant and amiable. I do not believe in democracy, but I am perfectly willing to admit that it provides the only really amusing form of government ever endured by mankind."

-H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

 

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Keep in mind Mencken died in 1956, when the conservative and liberal ideologies were in their infancy. I highly doubt that if Mencken was alive today he would fall under the modern definitions of a conservative, I base this on his views of religion, but that's debatable. I have his biography, just haven't gotten around to reading it yet, as I have my work cut out for me in African American Lit this quarter.

[c| Hathcock]

Just a quick comment because it's late and this caught my eye.  

How the hell can you claim Clinton's military took Iraq?  Clinton took our military from it's mandate of winning two wars at one time to winning one and mounting a holding action on the other.  In Kosovo the military nearly ran out of cruise missles, how the fuck can that reasonably happen?

["Sixhits"]

Well, the reason I say that this is Clinton's military that won the war in Iraq is that for eight years he ran the country. Bush is using the weapons, soldiers, infrastructure, and generals that Clinton fostered.

As for why we ran low on Crusie Missiles, it's because we shot so many of them. That's a sarcastic remark, but it's the truth. It's also cause we just don't need so many of them.

They're specialty weapons. Why don't we have 400 B2s or 100 Attack Subs? It's cause those sorts of weapons are the scalpes to a 2000lbs bomb's slegdehammer.

Even more interesting, the military has been trying for years to develop better, cheaper weapons - like JDAMs - which cost a few bucks (compared to cruise missiles) and turn dumb bombs into smart bombs. We have lotsa JDAMs (the development program was begun in 1995 and they were deployed in '97) so why do we need lotsa cruise missiles? Who was president in '95? Ahhhhh, yes. Clinton. This just one of the most obvious examples.

Clinton's focus in the nineties was to get the forces into shape for the threats of today while being fiscally responsable. Sure, perhaps we have a limited supply of cruise missiles, but I'd rather have all those special forces teams (what, they don't grow on trees over night?) than a few more friggin missiles. And those Clinton Spec Ops guys are doing the lions share of the work in places like Iraqi and Afganistan.

As for the two war mandate (it's actually a 2 1/2 war mandate, initiated by Kennedy - I know yer tired!): oh bullshit! We simply cannot afford the costs of maintianing - and deploying - the sorts of arms and soldiers needed. That, and the raw numbers of material and men needed to fight a two 1/2 war policy are not what they were in 1960 - we do a lot more these days with a lot less. More than that, we STILL have a vast military (dispite Clinton's reasonable and responsable cuts and spending shifts) - the more expensive military in the world. You want us to have, on paper, the ablity to fight 2 1/2 wars? It's a purposely requirement - who, dare I ask, will we be fighting those 2 1/2 wars against?

And don't spew about the dangers of the future. The dangers of the future are as Clinton and his advisors and his generals predicted: smaller ops and policing duties (sic, Occupation Iraq). And we did a pretty good job of whooping up on Iraq when we deployed Clinton's boys and girls.

Six years from now we can praise of blame Bush for the state of the military. Today, we must give the proper, if grudging, praise to Clinton.

["Sixhits"]

Here are the actually deployment numbers of the Tomahawk cruise missile during the Clinton years.

"In the early 1990s there were approximately 2,500 Tomahawks in inventory. That number was reduced to about 2,000 with the use of 330 during the 4-day bombing in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, and the use of over 160 by the Navy in Kosovo by mid-April 1999."

So after our war in Bosnia where not a single American died (go Clark!) Clinton's military retained .... just over 2100 cruise missiles. We sure did run out.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

[Ssickboy]

(6) Did we exhaust all other options? No. Come on! We enforced Bush's will. We tried to have our cake and eat it, too - touting Saddam's years of non-compliance with UN resolutions as a causus beli out one side the mouth while from the other side cursing the UN and calling it irrelevent when it came to supporting aggressive war against Iraq. Talk about bullshit and misleading!! As much as I may dislike France or Germany their opinions matters - much like if I dislike Ghostsniper, his opinion matter. Guess why? Because democracy is founded on the free expression of ideas and opinion - biased, self serving, or honestly given - it doesn't matter. And if we want to set the right example - if we want to bring democracy to the middle east, for example - we need to practice it. We need to demonstrait it. And when American Democracy looks like just another from of "the strong telling the weak what to do" then why would anyone, anywhere, be inspired to attain democracy? In fact, why not try and beat down the strong so you can tell the weak what to do. A lot of people praise the succesful invasion of Iraq as the US demonstraiting commitment to a cause and the potency of our military. Great. But that was not the reason I was told we invaded. Nor is it a good reason. Nor will it succeed in cowing our opponents. All it does is undermine our own Democracy and the persistance of all other Democracys.

I really like this point.  It shows the US hypocrisy when it comes to foreign affairs.  It also reminds me of those democracies around the world that we secretly deposed in favor of dictators that better supported US interests.  This is the kind of policy the US implemented in order to stop the "Commies" throughout the Cold War.  And it's ironic that our cold war enemies are becoming allies (naturally with time), as some middle pawn countries we actively destabilized, have become our greatest sources of threat , the "rogue nations."  But nothing has changed.  We still closely support askew governments like Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia among others.  And its likely these will become hot problematic places shortly in the future.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

Bravo Ssick, We live in a society goverend by the machiavellian principle of fear being stronger than love. This fear in turn alters the preception of the masses. A democracy based on fear is not a true democracy. Yet we claim to be free, when we are all slaves to inanimate objects of no true meaning. The industrial military complex is the true enemy of mankind, as it thrives off death and destruction. Perhaps, if we placed the resources given to destructive forces in education, logical thought would take the place of fear and misunderstanding.